Highway Code Hierarchy of Road Users

[Davit2005]

for example cyclist have always been advised to 'take primary' (i.e. ride in the middle of the lane) in order to be safer and prevent drivers passing in a manner that may be unsafe - it is just that now it is made clearer

it does not mean - and does not say - that cyclists should always ride in the middle of the lane - but some newspapers are saying that

 

I do think that cyclists should take up primary position if there is not enough room for a car (or bigger vehicle) to safely over take. A cyclist taking up primary position can also be dangerous. Say if car in front was turning and a car was waiting to come out of a side turning, it could be difficult for the car waiting to turning out of the side turning to see the cyclist as the cyclist would be possibly hidden by the car turning left.

 

As a cyclist I'd want visibility to other traffic and that includes using front lights to be seen by cars pulling out and cars they may go past on the left.

 

It is down to common sense they say but that is not a given these days, ego, emotions and other things can have an effect unfortunately.

Edited January 25, 2022 by Davit2005

[Koldov]

I had a (how shall I put this) 'heated discussion' with the OH about this the other day, the 'ignorance is no excuse' line, the common sense angle, the fact that wording things as 'guidance' isn't helpful and about the law and law-breaking in general. Bit difficult to get an unbiased opinion as she is in the job (not law-breaking, the other side)...

 

As far as 'ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it', who knows every single law and how it applies? Plus the Highway Code isn't 'the law' it is mostly guidance with some laws in it, but unless changes are advertised on various media formats how is everyone supposed to know? I haven't looked at it since I passed my test (which I know is no excuse - see above)...

 

Looking at holding up traffic (for cyclists specifically - I can't see anything in the 'new rules' for pedestrians), I read this:

 

"It's perfectly legal for cyclists to ride two abreast on the road, so when you are off on a spin with your friends, feel free to cycle side by side. However, the highway code states that you can't ride more than two abreast, and you can't do it when on narrow roads or when cycling around bends."

 

https://totalwomenscycling.com/commuting/5-surprising-things-legal-cycling

 

Now, it's just an example but the "Highway Code states", means what exactly? It's the law...no.

 

The thing is the 'hierarchy of road users' seems fairly common sense to me. It possibly wasn't a 'legal' thing as much as right of way/priority is seen as. Technically I'm not sure that you 'break the law' if you pull out on someone and cause an accident because they had 'right of way/priority' specifically, although that would be the 'gist' of the issue (possibly for insurance claims), rather you'd be prosecuted under the fairly wide umbrella of 'dangerous driving/due care and attention' etc. If at all... as long as there were no serious injuries/fatalities...

"You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going

ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or

lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This

applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on

the road and you should give way to them."

 

I mean, this is obvious isn't it? How else do you pull in/out of a busy turning - use your experience as a car driver to assess the speed of oncoming traffic and make a decision on if it is safe to pull out, right? The thing is is says you 'should not'...?

 

If you look at Rule H2:

 

You MUST give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing, and to pedestrians

and cyclists on a parallel crossing (see Rule 195).

 

You should give way to pedestrians waiting to cross a zebra.

 

Also, this:

 

'At a junction you should give way to pedestrians crossing or waiting to cross a

road into which or from which you are turning.'

 

The Highway Code explains:

 

"Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these

rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty

points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases

you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words

‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to

the legislation which creates the offence"

 

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself,

cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence

in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the

law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such

as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

 

The difference as I see it, is that you might be prosecuted for doing something in instances where it says 'should/should not' as being 'dangerous driving/due care and attention' possibly citing the Highway Code 'rules', but you will be prosecuted for instances where it says 'must/must not' as those are part of the law.

[elsiegee40]

 

How would this work on roundabouts? Does the entire lot stop because someone wants to cross at one of the exits?

 

I must admit that this did make think of the French “priority to the right” rule which has largely now been abolished even if some French drivers choose not to remember that.

 

When roundabouts first became a thing ‘priorité à droite’ meant stopping on the roundabout to let traffic join the roundabout which naturally caused chaos. “Vous n’avez pas priorité” signs then appeared to stop this so roundabouts could operate in the conventional manner of most other countries (only most as India and roundabouts is a whole other set of “rules” )

[mikeprice]

I've just looked and apparently it's no longer a requirement to have one's man walk in front of one's vehicle with a warning flag!

 

WHAT!!

 

THAT'S AMAZING!!

 

that one thing is going to save us a fortune in Mrs mikeprice's show leather!!

 

Thanks for letting us know

[mikeprice]

Back to the topic

 

There is a big motorway roundabout near here - and there is a pavement around about half of it - which is also a cycle path

 

The roundabout is the normal huge affair and the traffic can be quite heavy

 

the pavement/cyclepath goes over the part where the traffic joins the slip road going down to the M62

 

I cannot see any cars giving way to walkers or cyclists waiting to cross at that point - - and if they did I would worry whether the cars behind them will realise.

 

mostly it seems to make sense - but someone doesn;t seem to have gone through all the possibilities

[hardtailstar]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60089225

 

Literally been doing this for years!

[Koldov]

A lot of headlines in 'some' newspapers are rather alarmist

 

e.g. one was saying that you can be fined for opening your door with the wrong hand

total whatsit

 

This part...?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60089225

 

Literally been doing this for years!

 

 

 

"This rule comes into force from Saturday and drivers who ignore it could be fined up to £1,000 under the Highway Code's penalty rules"

 

Can someone find it in the 'new rules'...?

[LeMarchand]

Can someone find it in the 'new rules'...?

 

Rule 239 is a "should", so not an insta-fine?

 

where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your

hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example,

use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will

make you turn your head to look over your shoulder.

 

Been thinking more about "the hierarchy". It's eminently possible for it to work well, but only if everyone follows the rules/guidance and is attentive and considerate of other users. As we all know, lots of people are neither. I'm sure we've all seen people walking along paying more attention to their phones than their environs, cyclists failing to even think about stopping at a red light, drivers ignoring the speed limit and so on up the chain. None of these behaviours and the multitude of others will suddenly change with the new regs.

 

In the case of drivers, I seriously believe that some social engineering might help. Ban Clarkson and his ilk for a start. There is way too much of a false correlation between driving fast/aggressively and skill (and masculinity).

 

Some physical engineering might also help. Why does anyone need a car that does significantly more than the UK speed limit? If you want to drive fast, there are "race car" type days.

[jthompson]

99+ times out of 100 when I'm opening my car door I'm either on my driveway or in a car park, so I can't see myself habitually using the dutch door thingy. I do make a point of checking mirror and blind spot on the odd occasions when I am actually opening the door into the road. The fact that loads of people apparently don't is something I find mind-boggling, frankly.

[Andrew_C]

 

The bit that worries me is this diagram that's doing the rounds - it implies that the cyclist can undertake cars turning left. I don't think this is what they mean...

[flyinghaggis]

 

The bit that worries me is this diagram that's doing the rounds - it implies that the cyclist can undertake cars turning left. I don't think this is what they mean...

 

I thought the same thing. Surely the cyclist is in the wrong if they overtake a car that's indicating to turn? It seem to imply that now cyclists can overtake turning vehicles with impunity? I certainly wouldn't risk doing that kind of manoeuvre if I was out cycling!

 

Rule H3: New priority for cyclists when cars are turning You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them. Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist, horse rider or horse drawn vehicle going straight ahead to stop or swerve. You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary.

Edited January 26, 2022 by flyinghaggis

[LeMarchand]

The bit that worries me is this diagram that's doing the rounds - it implies that the cyclist can undertake cars turning left. I don't think this is what they mean...

 

It's not so much giving permission to undertake, but warning against (say) nipping past a cyclist and then going left, forcing them to brake. I'm more worried by the cyclist on the right; the diagram seems to imply that it's OK to overtake a car indicating (one hopes!) that they are turning right.

 

You should not cut across cyclists, horse riders or horse drawn vehicles going ahead when you are turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether they are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.

 

^^^

Took too long to finish that post!

 

I have to confess that I will generally drive close to the kerb (when there isn't a cycle lane etc) when turning left and cyclists are around to prevent being undertaken.

Edited January 26, 2022 by LeMarchand

[Andrew_C]

Oh I can see what was intended, but that ISN'T clear in the diagram.

[Davit2005]

It is not only protecting cyclists but getting them respect of other road users, some motorists will have a problem with that for various reasons.

 

People should not change lanes without checking mirrors and if possible a shoulder check of blind spots. Should also check mirrors before turning left or right or overtaking to make sure there is not a motorbike/bicycle overtaking in any case. Using indicator does not give the right to jus cut in front of another road user and never should.

 

There is room for mis interpretation and the media should ask someone who knows what they are talking about without bias to speak about it.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Davit2005

[LeMarchand]

Using indicator does not give the right to jus cut in front of another road user and never should.

 

What about the cases where there were no vehicles wanting to turn/towards the right of the lane behind them when a car slows and indicates that they are turning right. Surely a bike/motorbike passing on the right is cutting in front of the car?

 

(Not had a cyclists do this, but have had motorcyclists do it).

[elsiegee40]

It's not so much giving permission to undertake, but warning against (say) nipping past a cyclist and then going left, forcing them to brake.

As a teenager, I got knocked off my bike by a car doing exactly that. It took ages to pick the gravel out of the grazes

[Davit2005]

What about the cases where there were no vehicles wanting to turn/towards the right of the lane behind them when a car slows and indicates that they are turning right. Surely a bike/motorbike passing on the right is cutting in front of the car?

 

(Not had a cyclists do this, but have had motorcyclists do it).

 

I've had issues as a cyclist where a car has overtaken and purposefully cut into the kerb in queuing traffic (obviously triggered by a road user making better progress), can you blame a cyclist for not going around to the right of cars in queuing traffic if there is enough room and it is safe to do so.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Davit2005

[LeMarchand]

If there's a queue I don't see why all road users can't retain their place; we're British, dammit! However, I believe it's legal for Two Wheels to overtake a queue where safe, so I'm fine with cyclists overtaking on the right. Although I suspect I'm in the minority, I'll try to let them back in and over to the left should traffic speed up. Totally against cyclists undertaking on the left unless there is a designated lane as it's unsafe and also against any vehicle passing a vehicle waiting to turn right on the right for the same reasons. I'd imagine that a cyclist would be rightly miffed if a car pulled that second one on them.

[Koldov]

Lane splitting, white-lining, stripe-riding or filtering/filtering forward...

 

On my journey to work I regularly see a guy on a moped. There is usually quite a queue of traffic at the lights and he rides up past us all (sometimes on the left sometimes on the right or weaves in and out depending on where the gaps are) and positions himself in the cyclist's only (?) box in front of the traffic.

 

The thing is this can very confusing for drivers in a vehicle (especially one with blind spots). It sometimes can appear as if they come out of nowhere and unless you are swivelling your head 360 degrees at all times, someone who wasn't there when you looked (or was on one side further behind you) suddenly zooms past you on the other side! The trouble is, this is quite near the school and cars often peel out to get across the road and drop their children off (and we all know stressed parents on the school run who are possibly only concerned with getting their children to school and getting to work themselves might not be as careful and considerate as at other times).

 

There is another point where you have to be pretty close in to the kerb. The road splits further up into two lanes, but to keep the traffic flowing and stop miles of tailbacks people start splitting a bit further back. It is possible but I'm afraid to say it doesn't leave much room for anything to get past unless they do the above. Of course they could wait in line like the rest of us, but why would they if they are legally allowed to proceed (isn't that one of the advantages of using a bicycle)...?

 

[RLR]

The new rule for pedestrians makes sense but I feel in busy city centres this is just going to cause more traffic. On our main roads in the city centre there are 100s of people walking a long the streets so if they have right of way now it's just going to slow cars down even more. Some cars may have to wait several minutes before they find a spot to turn into the road with lots of other cars waiting behind. Maybe this is the reason for doing it. To try stop people using their cars in city centres.

[LeMarchand]

Maybe this is the reason for doing it. To try stop people using their cars in city centres.

 

Unfortunately not all city centres have park and rides or other economic ways to get close and then get into the centre. The city to our East has a park and ride that we use when going there (not that often!), but not the one to our West. Some of them aren't running late night either

Edited January 26, 2022 by LeMarchand

[mikeprice]

I have just been told that the new version - which becomes current on Saturday - is not out in print yet and may not be until March

 

 

I know most people who read the HC are about to take their test - and are therefore mostly young - and therefore mostly are used to doing things online

 

 

however, I would expect it to be available in print at least a few weeks before becoming current

[Davit2005]

I think there is a mentality of keeping place. You see it when traffic is supposed to merge from 2 lanes down to 1 and a driver has taken it upon himself to block cars using the outside lane not realising that it helps traffic flow. It is easy to understand a gripe against someone who is jus intent on jumping a queue instead of jus using the merge as it should be.

[Andrew_C]

I think there is a mentality of keeping place. You see it when traffic is supposed to merge from 2 lanes down to 1 and a lorry driver has taken it upon himself to block cars using the outside lane not realising that it helps traffic flow. It is easy to understand a gripe against someone[/] the BWM driver* who is just intent on jumping a queue instead of just merging in turn as it should be.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

*other makes of German cars (and their drivers) are available.

[LeMarchand]

The problem with merging is that I find that the type of drivers who tend to be on the right think it means "everyone stupid enough to be in the slow car lane must wait until all of us superior drivers have passed" rather than it being a 1:1 merge.